Nevermore Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Hey I think I've figured out 4th dimension speed. (speed of time) The big bang expanded the universe, throwing light in all directions, and also throwing the edge of the universe with it. So it must be conceived that the universe and all it's space are expanding at the same speed as that of light. So, c=u where "U" = the speed of the universe expanding, and "C" = the speed of light According to Einstien, space and time are the same thing. So, assuming the theories of Relativity and the Big Bang are accurate, the speeds of: light, the universe expanding, and time are all the same. C=U=T Where "C" = the speed of light, "U" = the speed of the universe expanding, and "T" = the speed of time. Time moves at the speed of light.
Dave Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 According to Einstien, space and time are the same thing. Well, not really. He said that they're very, very closely linked (i.e. spacetime), but space and time are most certainly not the same. Also, you need to think about what you're saying. What does "speed of time" actually mean? What you're describing there is more like the rate of expansion of the universe, but that has a lot more factors in it - namely gravity.
Nevermore Posted September 16, 2004 Author Posted September 16, 2004 Also, you need to think about what you're saying. What does "speed of time" actually mean? What you're describing there is more like the rate of expansion of the universe, but that has a lot more factors in it - namely gravity. No, I'm saying that time is continuing along at the speed of light. So that 1 year (in the sence of the distace tive travles in a year) is equal to 1 light-year
J'Dona Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 From what I've read, the rate of travel through spacetime of anything in the universe is always c, so as something travels faster through space, it slows down in time (time dilation). I'm taking that from The Elegant Universe, and I can't quite recall the equation for it from the appendix, but it makes sense. For an object barely moving at all (anything in terrestrial standards) the rate of passage through time is just about c, whereas for an object travelling at almost the speed of light, time is very slow indeed. In that case the speed of time would only be equal to that of light when an object is at rest. Incidentally, if the universe and all objects in it are expanding at the speed of light, how would you account for objects in it not acquiring infinite mass? And since a lightyear (measured in metres) doesn't have the same units as a year (measured in seconds), how can they be equal?
Dave Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 From what I've read, the rate of travel through spacetime of anything in the universe is always [i']c[/i] Yeah, there's a thread on here somewhere with a proof of this.
bishnu Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Well for one, the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light its expanding at the speed of hubbles contast 71 +-4 km/s/Mpc at this moment and in fact evidence suggest that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Second applying velocity to the speed of time is incoherent. the speedof time equals 3X10^8 meters/second...what would that mean well for one its a self defintion becasue it already has time in it and second it applys distance to the meaning of time...almost meaningless...
Nevermore Posted September 16, 2004 Author Posted September 16, 2004 Look, I'm not thinking of time as a clock, I'm saying that new room is being added to the 4th dimention at a rate of c cubed
Thales Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Why do people keep saying that the universe expands at c. It doesn't. We know the expansion rate and it is very much below c.
Nevermore Posted September 17, 2004 Author Posted September 17, 2004 Why do people keep saying that the universe expands at c. It doesn't. We know the expansion rate and it is very much below c. We do not know the speed of expansion, we have a theory. And all I am doing is presenting another theory as to the speed of expansion of the universe, and of the 4th dimension.
dagaz Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 speed by definition is equal to distance divided by time, how can time equal distance divided by time?
Sayonara Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Why does time need to have a speed? Does it have some place to get to?
Nevermore Posted September 17, 2004 Author Posted September 17, 2004 We do not know the speed of expansion, we have a theory. And all I am doing is presenting another theory as to the speed of expansion of the universe, and of the 4th dimension. Time is not moving, I am saying that New space is added to the 4th dimension at the speed of light. Also, I am saying that the Universe could very probably be expanding at the speed of light also.
[Tycho?] Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Hey I think I've figured out 4th dimension speed. (speed of time) I sometimes wish this was like another forum that I go to, where saying something like this would get you flamed for eternity.
[Tycho?] Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Time is not moving, I am saying that New space is added to the 4th dimension at the speed of light. Also, I am saying that the Universe could very probably be expanding at the speed of light also. You have no idea what you are talking about. Listen to people here, or leave now. Too many people come here claiming to have brilliant new insights into the workings of the universe. Saying that is a sign of ignorance. If you actually knew what you were talking about you would be publishing a scientific paper on the subject, not posting on some internet forum.
Nevermore Posted September 17, 2004 Author Posted September 17, 2004 Well for one, the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light its expanding at the speed of hubbles contast 71 +-4 km/s/Mpc Why do people keep saying that the universe expands at c. It doesn't. We know the expansion rate and it is very much below c. I spy a hole in your argument
Nevermore Posted September 17, 2004 Author Posted September 17, 2004 I'm not saying my theory is fact, I'm just saying it may be this way, and listing my reasoning for thinking so.
Douglas Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Hey I think I've figured out 4th dimension speed. (speed of time) The big bang expanded the universe' date=' throwing light in all directions, and also throwing the edge of the universe with it. So it must be conceived that the universe and all it's space are expanding at the same speed as that of light. So, c=u where "U" = the speed of the universe expanding, and "C" = the speed of light According to Einstien, space and time are the same thing. So, assuming the theories of Relativity and the Big Bang are accurate, the speeds of: light, the universe expanding, and time are all the same. C=U=T Where "C" = the speed of light, "U" = the speed of the universe expanding, and "T" = the speed of time. Time moves at the speed of light. Time stops at the speed of light
revprez Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Hey I think I've figured out 4th dimension speed. (speed of time) Did you figure out a speed for distance while you were at it?
Nevermore Posted September 18, 2004 Author Posted September 18, 2004 Time stops at the speed of light Yes, but only in the sense of time as a clock. Think of time as a filing cabnit, events in the past are stored in the cabnit of time after they happen. However, if time did not expand, the Universe's events would fill it up very quickly. All I am saying, is that new empty shelves are added to the cabnit, (later to be filled up by events) at the rate of C.
Thales Posted September 18, 2004 Posted September 18, 2004 The hubble constant has not been accurately measured, anyone claiming otherwise is a lying, or at best embellishing the truth. Have you actually stopped to think about the consequences of a universe that expands faster than the speed of light. Take the WMAP data for instance, how could the background temperature of the universe be so homogenous if the phonons from one section of sky could not 'communicate' their temperature to other regions. How could light, infact, traverse the distances between galaxies if the galaxies are receding at a rate faster than that at which light travels. There are holes in you arguement my friend. It is mainly based around conjecture and a multitude of errorneous assumptions. That and the very concept of the speed of time is not only physically insignificant but quantative nonsense. I have studied long and hard in the areas of astrophysics and cosmology so please don't presume that such a subjective based arguement, such as yours holds any weight with me or in fact the larger scientific community. You may well be onto something, some concept that is the seed for a great discovery. However please respect those superiors in your field when they try to point out the errors in your reasoning. Intellectual arrogance breeds ignorance and if you don't listen to people, the tried and tested methods of peer review, about which science revolves, breaks down. Then you are left with a jilted view of physical reality and you will lose respect from your collegues. I hope I don't sound overly harsh in this post as tone is impossible to type. I am telling you this in the hope it will make you a better scientist and thus you can aid more effectively to the wealth of human knowledge and understanding.
Nevermore Posted September 18, 2004 Author Posted September 18, 2004 The hubble constant has not been accurately measured' date=' anyone claiming otherwise is a lying, or at best embellishing the truth. Have you actually stopped to think about the consequences of a universe that expands faster than the speed of light. Take the WMAP data for instance, how could the background temperature of the universe be so homogenous if the phonons from one section of sky could not 'communicate' their temperature to other regions. How could light, infact, traverse the distances between galaxies if the galaxies are receding at a rate faster than that at which light travels. There are holes in you arguement my friend. It is mainly based around conjecture and a multitude of errorneous assumptions. That and the very concept of the speed of time is not only physically insignificant but quantative nonsense. I have studied long and hard in the areas of astrophysics and cosmology so please don't presume that such a subjective based arguement, such as yours holds any weight with me or in fact the larger scientific community. You may well be onto something, some concept that is the seed for a great discovery. However please respect those superiors in your field when they try to point out the errors in your reasoning. Intellectual arrogance breeds ignorance and if you don't listen to people, the tried and tested methods of peer review, about which science revolves, breaks down. Then you are left with a jilted view of physical reality and you will lose respect from your collegues. I hope I don't sound overly harsh in this post as tone is impossible to type. I am telling you this in the hope it will make you a better scientist and thus you can aid more effectively to the wealth of human knowledge and understanding.[/quote'] You are right, of course. I was being arrogant. Oh, but just to clear somthing up, I never said anything went faster than the speed of light. Just at the same speed.
Nevermore Posted September 18, 2004 Author Posted September 18, 2004 The hubble constant has not been accurately measured, anyone claiming otherwise is a lying, or at best embellishing the truth. Why do people keep saying that the universe expands at c. It doesn't. We know the expansion rate and it is very much below c. You need to reread your posts. Oh, and by the way, I never said that the Hubble Contast had been measured, that was binshu. Well for one, the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light its expanding at the speed of hubbles contast 71 +-4 km/s/Mpc We do not know the speed of expansion, we have a theory. And all I am doing is presenting another theory as to the speed of expansion of the universe, and of the 4th dimension. See?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now